Does being a veteran keep you from serving on a jury?

Makes a tremendous amount of sense, we tend to see through bullshit, and that's all that lawyers are, whether they are on your side or not, they are just actors who try to make a story fit the way they want it to

Rarely is the question asked, but being an attorney I can't think of a time when I would exclude someone on a jury because of their military service. If the subject of the litigation had something to do with the military, national defense, etc. then maybe.

I wouldn't say that military members have a greater understanding of the Constitution than the average person, but I will say that people with a military background tend to be a bit more rigid than the average civilian regarding the rules of law that don't have to be explained (no committing murder, don't burn your neighbor's house down, don't take things that aren't yours, etc). The military also does a wonderful job of taking away sympathy from the "but I was really drunk" defense.

It did me twice

Absolutely love this.

The defense need not prove anything. The prosecution must prove that the person is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.Which is why the defense will try to manufacture doubt, whether there is any or not.

Perhaps other's are neglecting their communication skills? Being that SFC Smith's point was to not prove beyond reasonable doubt, but that he would only vote the person guilty if they could remove ALL doubt thereby completely verifying they are guilty, or if they remove all doubt towards the person's innocence, disproving all evidence and claims to exterminate the possibility of "Wasn't proven beyond reasonable doubt so they are innocent, but they could have done it, we just can't prove it." Or "There has been sufficient evidence to dictate to give beyond reasonable doubt, but it could be a rare chance that they are actually innocent."

I've once had police officers accuse my friends and I of something some other kids in my school did. Said they got the call literally like 38 seconds ago (yet for us to move at least a mile in that short of a time and not need to catch our breath is pretty fuckin' fast), said two fat kids and a skinny one (plenty of fat people in town), and the skinny one was wearing a BDU jacket (plenty of people in town own one, especially those of us who were in or had been in the Navy JROTC program, hunters and people that shop at the thrift stores). I continued to ask the officers how they KNEW it was us, said he doesn't have to tell me anything. They guy that made the call eventually showed up, said one he knows for sure, the other and I, he was sure, but couldn't confirm. Almost got arrested for kids smashing pumpkins on Halloween with the only evidence being a very common body size and wearing a common item that matched the descriptions, everything else was hearsay, which with all my time in civics, law and criminology classes, military and security officer experience, hearsay and rumors are not testifiable in court.

1LT (Join to see) - Exactly.

at the same time, i feel as though vets have very reality oriented mindsets. and it DOES say in our laws that in a court of law, all people are to be assumed innocent until sufficient evidence has been presented and confirmed to prove them guilty. If the evidence is presented, but there is doubt as to the validity of the evidence, then the person may not be guilty.

Vets have logic on their side
We don't get bullied
And we also don't fall for tricks
Innocent until proven guilty

From my experience it depends on the case. Once the prosecutor found out I was a vet and was security police they wanted me since many of the witnesses being called were law enforcement. Needless to say defense wanted me excused.

SSG Grant Hansen - It doesn't matter to lawyers who is guilty, or who bears responsibility in such a case. They ignore the guy who caused the damage because he has no funds, and instead take aim at the "deep pockets". of anyone who does have money.